An example of why it isn't always God

[Hell Kitty]

Oh of course. Mass genocide isn't evil, is it? Killing people is fun, right? And rape isn't evil, is it? From one perspective, the victim had it coming, right? Setting a kitten on fire isn't evil either, is it? 'Cause flames are kewl, right?

 

"To be the one responsible for removing that inferior race from the planet is truly a great honour." "It feels so good knowing you hold a persons life in your hands, and then to take it feels even better." "I showed her a good time and got what I wanted. The struggle was all part of the fun. She wanted it and she loved it." "The flames are so beautiful, I could watch them for hours. What a great way to get rid of the disgusting little vermin.

 

Sure, it's not always like that: things like capital punishment and abortion are significantly morally debated topics, but to say there is no good or evil is ridiculous.

 

"You think murdering an innocent child is a morally debatable topic? You are a truly evil person."

 

Good and evil are labels we put on things based on the beliefs shaped by our society and our own individual experiences. Nothing is inherently good or evil, and to claim some issues are black and white whilst others are gray is to arrogantly assume your views are the right ones.

[Pop]

If you're willing to apply that rule to, say, female genital mutilation (which might have been brought up already, but I ain't reading the rest of this thread tonight) I'm going to go ahead and say you're not worth listening to.

[Tigranes]

To claim that good and evil is all about perspective shouldn't mean that there is effectively no good and evil. If that was truly one's personal ideology, one would be, literally, immoral; one would be either completely irresponsible, or completely paralysed. So yes, for each of us, good and evil does exist in a practical sense.

 

The trouble is finding out what's good and what's evil, and *why* you think it's good or evil.

[Hell Kitty]

Helping an old lady across the street is good.

 

But what if that old lady is trying to cross the street so she can rape and burn a kitten?

[Hell Kitty]

So yes, for each of us, good and evil does exist in a practical sense.

 

This is true.

 

The trouble is finding out what's good and what's evil, and *why* you think it's good or evil.

 

Exactly. If people think that female genital mutilation is all fine and dandy, simply telling them that they're evil for thinking that isn't going to change anything.

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, you're right. It's not so much that people who do it are evil, because they might have, within their own society, genuinely good reasons for doing it.

 

That doesn't mean that they're actually good reasons, and it doesn't mean that the act itself can't be described as evil, but it's enough of a gray area.

 

It's not in the same league, but would it theoretically make cutting a sheeps tail off evil?

[Hell Kitty]

It's not in the same league, but would it theoretically make cutting a sheeps tail off evil?

 

PETA probably thinks it's evil, but I'm sure the farmers who do it don't think so. I personally think it's pretty horrible, but I think evil is too strong a word for it. Unless your intention is actually to hurt the animal because you think their suffering is funny, then I'd probably call it evil. So intent is pretty important.

 

Or is it? Take my avatar for example, Dexter is a serial killer who only kills other serial killers. There are people who think he is a monster who must be stopped and others who think he is a vigilante stopping monsters. Is he a good man (because he punishes killers) who does evil things (because he kills), or an evil man (because he enjoys killing) who does good things (because he punishes killers)? If the world is as black and white as The Architect claims, this should be an easy question to answer. Or perhaps this is one of those conveniently gray areas.

 

When does an issue because black or white, when the majority agrees? Jews believe the soul enters the body at birth and so abortion is allowable (though not encouraged) and this is obviously not something Christians agree on. So who is right? Abortion is a black issue and Jews are wrong, or is abortion really a gray issue and Christians are wrong?

Edited March 20, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Guest The Architect]

"To be the one responsible for removing that inferior race from the planet is truly a great honour." "It feels so good knowing you hold a persons life in your hands, and then to take it feels even better."

 

They're just excuses. Only an idiot would think that genocide isn't wrong. The results of the act itself are far more relevant than a completely ridiculous perspective of some nut job loser.

 

"I showed her a good time and got what I wanted. The struggle was all part of the fun. She wanted it and she loved it."

 

Oh, you know what, you're right! Yeah, right. Ever consider the woman would say that she was raped after, exposing that dickheads justification/excuse/bull**** for what it really is? And if it was "part of the fun", then no **** it's not rape, because the woman wanted it to be that way for some perverted, weirdo reason.

 

"The flames are so beautiful, I could watch them for hours. What a great way to get rid of the disgusting little vermin.

 

Oh yeah that really just makes everything all right then, doesn't it? Never mind the poor kitten, or the suffering it endured. So if I could blow up Cuba and I did, then say "That country was gay, they had it coming" that would make everything fine, would it?

 

"You think murdering an innocent child is a morally debatable topic? You are a truly evil person."

 

I never said I think it is. The reality is it is though. Whether abortion is right or not has been a controversial and highly debated topic for ages.

 

Good and evil are labels we put on things based on the beliefs shaped by our society and our own individual experiences. Nothing is inherently good or evil, and to claim some issues are black and white whilst others are gray is to arrogantly assume your views are the right ones.

 

Oh of course. I'm arrogant for thinking that things like rape and genocide are wrong, aren't I? Krookie's right. The people who believe there's no good and evil and it's all a matter of perspective are just attention seeking morons who think they're cool but they're not. And like I said, I know not all issues are black and white, but some indisputably are and if you can't see that then **** me...

Edited March 20, 2008 by The Architect

[Hell Kitty]

The people who believe there's no good and evil and it's all a matter of perspective

 

Believing that good and evil are a matter of perspective does not mean believing that there is no good and evil. I believe certain acts are evil, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me and them insult them when they don't.

 

And like I said, I know not all issues are black and white, but some indisputably are and if you can't see that then ****...

 

"Some issues are black and white and if you don't agree with me then you're a ****". This is the attitude that is arrogant, in that same way it's arrogant to dimiss someone as a "liberal crybaby" if they are anti-war or a "conservative nutjob" if they are pro-war. Who are you to decide what's black and white and gray?

Edited March 20, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Pop]

Haha, you're ridiculous.

[Hell Kitty]

That is a fabulous argument. Congratulations. BTW, you're evil.

[Guest The Architect]

I said believing that there's no good and evil and it's ALL a matter of perspective is ridiculous, not that it's ridiculous to think that some of it depends on perspective when none of it does.

 

You were the one who said that nothing is inherently good or evil, which is bull****.

Edited March 20, 2008 by The Architect

[SteveThaiBinh]

Can we keep this civil? It'd be a shame to lose the thread.

[Pop]

This thread ran its course when people started making qualitative judgements and arbitrarily rejecting other, similar qualitative judgements as somehow off-limits.

[Guest The Architect]

I'll put it in another way for you, Hell Kitty.

 

Causing harm to something or someone in self-defence, in defence of another or with reasonable justification isn't evil, but when there's no self-defence, defending of another, then it comes down to justification, and what I was saying is, usually it's pretty black and white whether that reasoning is acceptable or not, because self-defence, defending of another or it being an accident are the only reasonable justifications.

 

Maybe I do overestimate how black and white issues in general are, but what you said was there's no good and evil and it's all a matter of perspective. Initially, that might be the case when someone's killed or something. You don't know the full story, but at the end of the day, usually it becomes pretty clear whether the act was evil or not. They call it investigating.

 

And in some cases such as the ones I mentioned {rape, setting a kitten on fire and genocide}, there's just no humanely possible way you can justify those actions.

 

Oh and sorry for being partly responsible for taking this topic off topic.

Edited March 20, 2008 by The Architect

[Hell Kitty]

Maybe I do overestimate how black and white issues in general are, but what you said was there's no good and evil and it's all a matter of perspective.

 

I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with nightshape that "there is no good or evil". There is good and evil, it's just that which is which depends on who you ask, and if people disagree how can it be so obviously black and white?

 

usually it becomes pretty clear whether the act was evil or not.

 

Like you, I think rape is an evil act, but how many times (on this very forum) have you seen people claim they want a particular criminal to get raped in prison? I think wanting someone to be raped is pretty evil, but obviously those who believe in eye-for-an-eye style justice don't think the issue is so black and white.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Hell Kitty

[Tigranes]

I think Pop and the Architect are really reacting to the argument, "there is no good and evil; it is impossible therefore to make moral judgements on others; we are all postmodern immoral fairies." I also think it is fair to suggest that neither I, nor Hell Kitty, nor anyone actually living in the real world, really, would make that claim. So hopefully we can move on from that.

 

I think there is a way for us to bring it down to examples that both sides can actually imagine;

 

Only an idiot would think that genocide isn't wrong.

 

In our society, in our worldview systems, yes. Why? Because from the very beginning of our lives, we are conditioned to believe that human life is one of the most sacred things in the world. Us (on the forums here) are also very rarely exposed to mass death of any scale, and therefore it is not even a practical necessity to have to kill people. So it's very, very far away from us.

 

But would you say that the Europeans of the 16th-17th century, who thought black people were inherently stupid and semi-human, and killing them wasn't that bad, were all idiots? There aren't 'universal, timeless human values' which every human in every imaginable society and civilisation, would follow. And if there are, they are very few and very essential (e.g. 'human life' was generally valued throughout our history, but that didn't stop numerous forms of sanctioned killing).

 

That's not to say that we should consider the possibility that genocide may be a 'good' thing for our society. But it raises an important point; that when we are 'naturally' repulsed by something, and we think 'that's just naturally inhuman', actually, we are employing a value system that is not absolute and that is a MIX of natural instincts and social conditioning. This helps us form more informed, more thought-out moralities that are more honest to ourselves, than "this is evil/bad because I just find it disgusting".

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

What is evil?

What is good?

 

The same side of a coin viewed for two seperae angles... There is no good or evil, only perspective.

 

Oh of course. Mass genocide isn't evil, is it? Killing people is fun, right? And rape isn't evil, is it? From one perspective, the victim had it coming, right? Setting a kitten on fire isn't evil either, is it? 'Cause flames are kewl, right?

 

When it comes to what is good/right and what is evil/wrong, generally it's more black and white than people may think. Sure, it's not always like that: things like capital punishment and abortion are significantly morally debated topics, but to say there is no good or evil is ridiculous.

 

Ooooh, That one got under your skin didn't it.

 

You have a right to a personal and moral standpoint, naturally you can believe that something is evil, or that it is good... And naturally I would myself. I hope you don't suppose I think such things are good? Everything that I say next is not a representation of my own morality. It is simpley a demonstration of what I said, and thus why I believe it is a correct statement that there is no good or evil only perspective.

 

You suppose that mass genoside is "evil", but those whom are commiting said genoside must obviously see some good in it? If there was a percieved benefit to killing, at that point the perspective becomes good for the benefit of those whom are committing said genoside. As killing people for "fun" makes no sense.

 

If my moral standpoint is that the wholesale slaughter of individuals for the gain of other individuals is wrong, then maybe I would say it is evil. Though if I had a different set of morals, say, a morality of whatever benefits me positively is good, and I would gain from genoside, then perhaps I would say it was the right thing to do, perhaps even a good thing.

 

I'm not going to expand upon the others, because I don't want to upset people, and people certainly get upset whenever kittens are involved .

 

Point being quite simple really, good and evil do not exist in the manner of universal truth, the idea that there is but one good that is true for all, you can have your own personal perspective of what is good, I may even agree with you, lots of people may agree, thousands or millions may, but it doesn't make it good, it makes it agree'd.

 

Edit: The Architect, are you Christian? You have that... Tone about you.

Edited March 20, 2008 by @\NightandtheShape/@

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I'll put it in another way for you, Hell Kitty.

 

Causing harm to something or someone in self-defence, in defence of another or with reasonable justification isn't evil, but when there's no self-defence, defending of another, then it comes down to justification, and what I was saying is, usually it's pretty black and white whether that reasoning is acceptable or not, because self-defence, defending of another or it being an accident are the only reasonable justifications.

 

Maybe I do overestimate how black and white issues in general are, but what you said was there's no good and evil and it's all a matter of perspective. Initially, that might be the case when someone's killed or something. You don't know the full story, but at the end of the day, usually it becomes pretty clear whether the act was evil or not. They call it investigating.

 

And in some cases such as the ones I mentioned {rape, setting a kitten on fire and genocide}, there's just no humanely possible way you can justify those actions.

 

Oh and sorry for being partly responsible for taking this topic off topic.

 

The problem is that you're projecting your own morality onto the arguement, instead of rationally thinking about it without any emotional attachment. It is obvious to me that you're unable to think about certain things without being offended, rape offends me, child abuse offends me, setting kittens on fire offends me, genocide offends me. I believe these things are WRONG, but that doesn't make the universally wrong.

 

Good and Evil exist for you in whatever manner you wish them to, some things are more universally agree'd upon, but that doesn't make said arguement correct, if that was infact the case then genoside would never happen, but it will, and it shall again, and for it to happen people must agree that it is a good thing, and enough people must agree.

[walkerguy]

Can we keep this civil? It'd be a shame to lose the thread.

 

Yeah right, this thread is misery.

[Nick_i_am]

PETA probably thinks it's evil, but I'm sure the farmers who do it don't think so. I personally think it's pretty horrible, but I think evil is too strong a word for it. Unless your intention is actually to hurt the animal because you think their suffering is funny, then I'd probably call it evil. So intent is pretty important.

 

Well, it's done in a non-painful way (blood circulation is cut off until it falls off, generally), and it's done pretty much purely for health reasons. Domesticated sheep have no use for their tails and tend to get crap all over then which (esspesally for female sheep) tends to lead to genital infections, potentially killing the animal or rendering them infirtile.

 

So yeah, intention is important, but generally these are animals that are going to be eaten so who can say.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Pardon me if this has already been discussed as I have not read every posting in the thread, but it seems the point that is being argued is whither there we have an absolute, rather then a subjective, morality system. Personally, I believe that all morals, be they personal or societal, are prejudiced towards the various worldviews of the culture in witch they evolved

[walkerguy]

Can we keep this civil? It'd be a shame to lose the thread.

 

Yeah right, this thread is misery.

 

Hell Kitty is being absolutely ridiculous. Pretty dark views. Its "good" to rapists, killers, arsonists and "evil" to victims? There is no perspective. There is good, there is evil, and there is the morally debatable. To put so simple an idiot could understand it, "if you don't want it done to you don't do it to others" which is an extremely broad statement, I know. They're "evil" by both my religion and my moral beliefs. "flames are kewl right?" Srsly, only a moron thinks thats kewl.

 

Mankind cannot continue when people stop and say, maybe killing isn't evil. Maybe I can stick my **** in someone and its just fine. These are not debatable. PERIOD. Evil. Whats good? Say... saving somebody's life, sacrificing something for good... And good intentions mean nothing. Only the resulting effects. Debatable? Abortion, capital punishment, cloning. But why? Is abortion really killing? Is capital punishment unjust? Is cloning volatile and wrong??

 

Deadly Nightshade: Same thing. The world has now decided sex outside of marriage is acceptable. No, this also is "evil", obviously not at the level of rape or murder, but evil nonetheless.

 

Nightandshpae: BENEFITS OF GENOCIDE? Yes, the killers get some land, food, whatever. Maybe they even gain civil rights. The inflicted oppression or discrimination may of been wrong but committing genocide doesn't make things right. Blood doesn't heal wounds. Genocide = . PERIOD.

I am sure a demented Hutu or Sudanese killer thinks they are "doing great honours" but I'm sure they don't want to be hacked with a machete. On the other hand, likely a Tutsi or Sudanese national thinks they're doing right by discriminating and hating in turn, but both sides are wrong.. Goodness is acceptance, love, and caring. I'm not telling them to go have a Chilean pokemon* event, but differences must be thrown down and a greater unity instilled. I guess Hitler thought gassing Jews was enjoyable revenge as well, whereas the Jews thought Christians were radical and needed to be crucified. The kid down the block gave me a wedgie, but I stole his lunch money. Good to somebody and evil to another, evil acts are often done on both sides. Retaliation is not justice. Same day, 1000 years later, whatever. Defense is an acceptable measure but retaliatory violence is not.

 

Serial killer who kills other serial killers?

 

Well, evil, but doing good. Leave him well alone, he's a free bounty hunter.

 

As for cutting sheep tails, if its a hygiene measure, you can suppose its not evil. Then again, you want someone to remove something form your body "because you don't need it"? Maybe. Perhaps you want to donate a kidney. Applying hygiene to your herd shouldn't be thought evil.

 

Helping an old lady across the street is good.

 

But what if that old lady is trying to cross the street so she can rape and burn a kitten?

 

You gently lead her to the mental hospital.

 

The same thing applies to the big-bang; it's not some esoteric area of science, it's based on the exact same foundations of our telecommunications industry and electronics industry in general.

 

Science is not just some unknown theory. It is the basis of advanced human civilisation. It is technology. It is not a metaphysical entity whose truth is uncertain any more than human existence is! People need to figure out science and faith are not related. They are very distinct and attempts to merge the two end in spectacular failure.

 

Edit: I'm not saying people shouldn't have faith. It's an important part of life even for atheists, in some form or another (whether faith in humanity or whatnot). But I am saying science and faith don't play well together. It is a very good idea to keep them separate.

 

You have the same junk in these posts as you did talking about Stargate Atlantis, for pete's sake. If there were no god explain this: Where did everything about/in/on/of/with/attached/related/etc of science come from? Where did your special big bang bang from? What convinces you that the universe just exploded on top of itself and the stars and worlds were created?! The thought and supposed evidence of nobody at the wheel is an even greater stupidity than the arguements against faith. You don't practice religion because it is a great explainer or definer such as science can be, you believe from because of faith. Faith is as strong as love, very difficult and complexing at times. However, there is no "evidence" of any god as you scientifics and atheists put it. But the kindness and goodwill of perhaps "so called christians" amidst so much amimosity and global enmities shows even in the event there were no divine being, we are still better than those who have given up or haven't tried faith or are even incapable of understanding it.

 

Hurlshot: I am Christian, traditionally baptist, but in a non-denomination church now. My church is generally baptist styled.

 

Any thing else I should respond to?

 

*

[Nick_i_am]

Then again, you want someone to remove something form your body "because you don't need it"? Maybe. Perhaps you want to donate a kidney.

 

Erm, excuse me, but what makes you assume that I havn't?

 

The problem with your above arguments is that you've damned all sorts of actions, such as killing, as being good or evil, period. But you've then said that killing in cirtain circumstances is okay, effectively supporting the post that you're trying to argue with.

[walkerguy]

Yes you can kill in war or defense. Not genocide by all means.